I Came Back for This?

[Ze-man]

I told Ellen that JC made a thread today and asked her if she wanted to read it.

 

She thought for a second and said "No", then went back to reading her newspaper.

 

[Jeffro.]

Funniest thread lately! (DeeDee's comment should be seconded.)

 

Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

 

How's that?

[MightyBeanComics]

Where did all the quality posters go?

 

This is like some bizarre wasteland of newbie nerds, few of which have anything remotely interesting to say, and whose primary vocabulary consists of CGC 9.8 images and emoticons.

 

I guess I'll come back on a weekly basis, as that's probably how long it'll take for a meaningful thread to pop up.

 

 

You must have been new at some point.

[OldGuy]

I Came Back for This?

 

No, you came back to make yourself feel better by ridiculing people that you think you are superior to.

[seanfingh]

 

 

Say what you want about the content lately. I lurked for years and it always waxes and wanes. But anyone that spends any time here has the opportunity to do two things, provided they are not a total *spoon*: (1) Meet some nice people and (2) buy/sell some nice books. I have been fortunate enough to do both. If I am not erudite enough to keep the interest of JC, I shall weep bitter tears until my lacrymal glands give out. Good night, sweet prince!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

--Sean.

[joe_collector]

btw, Whatever happened to your "new venture" anyways? When you started this recent posting binge this week I thought you must have taken a break, or were on vacation or something.

 

No big mystery - I had some free time earlier in the week and took the day off yesterday to get my SUV fully serviced for the summer holidays.

 

I won't make that mistake again.

[Dick Pontoon]

I guess I'll come back on a weekly basis

 

 

Can you let us know which day in advance??

 

 

To play devils' advocate, is this post of JC's all that different from the recent COI post about the state of the boards? That one saw a lot of activity.

[drice6900]

Joe's SUV, fully serviced (just needed a 'flush & fill') and ready for summer!

 

[G.A.tor]

I've really been enjoying the

 

"my last, last i tell you, attempted transaction with metropolis" thread,

 

but that's over in the GA forum, where everything is wonderful

[ashrael]

Where did all the quality posters go?

 

This is like some bizarre wasteland of newbie nerds, few of which have anything remotely interesting to say, and whose primary vocabulary consists of CGC 9.8 images and emoticons.

 

I guess I'll come back on a weekly basis, as that's probably how long it'll take for a meaningful thread to pop up.

 

I rate this image a 9.8...well done.

[Mr. Zipper]

Joe's SUV, fully serviced (just needed a 'flush & fill') and ready for summer!

 

 

[seank]

[Pirate]

There are certain people who can't be happy in life unless they are always complaining about one thing or another.

[garthgantu]

Only thing along these lines that's come close lately is Bedrock's posting of several GA books that were cleaned and pressed - and in one instance had the "Larson" erased from the cover, as part of the cleaning process. In the course of removing the name of one of the top pedigrees of all time, the cleaning also took plenty of gloss and cover ink as well.

 

How can this not be restoration? You're "removing something from the book in an effort to enhance its condition/appearance"? Isn't that directly in line with CGC's own definition of resto?

 

not sure why you're bringing this up, other than to stir some but Steve actually answered you in that thread.

 

My mind works like this: is there anything even remotely in the "restoration" category that CGC can identify consistently but doesn't view as resto? Or is it only the things they've acknowledged not being able to identify consistently that CGC officially views as being acceptable forms of 'enhancement'? Why does it seem that only the things CGC can't consistently detect end up being lumped into the "acceptable" category? It just seems very 'convenient' to me.

 

Tape removal/stains

Erasure (NOT dry cleaning)

Tape

 

These three things we can consistently detect and DO NOT consider restoration.

 

These are also three things "remotely" (considered by some hobbyists and by some conservation definitions) in the resto arena.

 

I happen to consider any regular tape BAD NEWS for comic books.

 

Sal, baby - I can't discern your motive here, so I'll keep an open mind... do YOU think Steve Borock's response is the be-all, end-all on this subject? I don't. So if continuing to try to divine CGC's exact position/philosophy on the subject of restoration strikes you as 'stirring up *spoon*' then label me "*spoon*-disturber #1"

 

Great, so Tape removal/stains, Erasure and Tape are three things CGC can consistently detect and does not consider restoration. WHY is erasure not considered restoration? Shouldn't it be, given its seeming perfect alignment with CGC's own definition of 'restoration'? Or is this one of those actions that falls into that category of "we can't tell what the motive was behind doing the erasure, and therefore cannot assume that it was done with the intention of enhancing the book" ? I think it's pretty clear that the erasing that I referred to (on the Mystic #2 8.5 shown in this thread) removed some of the book's original color and gloss. From Steve Borock's response above, this sort of thing is consistently detectable, so it must be an issue of motive on the part of whoever did the work? Seems like a grey area to me, along the lines of color touch... my understanding was/is that ALL color touch is viewed by CGC as resto, even if done in a very amateurish way. In other words, CGC doesn't factor in motive when it comes to color touch, so why do so with erasure?

 

Is erasure any less bad than trimming or color touch? Trimming removes part of the original book, and color touch attempts to replace/restore part of the original book. Erasure in many cases, perhaps most, removes some of the original book, and is consistently detectable by CGC. Seems like it should fall in the restoration category?

 

In fact, why is erasure broken out from 'cleaning' at all? Isn't it just another form of dry cleaning? Again, while I disagree with CGC's stance on dry cleaning, I can buy into it to an extent, as CGC says they can't always detect it and would in some cases be guessing - and guessing would definitely be bad. But Steve Borock says they don't have to guess when it comes to erasure - they can consistently detect it.

 

Is erasure the only type of 'manipulation which is done to enhance a book's condition/appearance' that does in fact 'remove some of the original material of the book' and isn't considered restoration? Because "tape removal/stains" and "tape," the other two things Steve B. includes on that list, do not remove some of the original material, at least not when they're done correctly...?

[PovertyRow]

Where did all the quality posters go?

 

This is like some bizarre wasteland of newbie nerds, few of which have anything remotely interesting to say, and whose primary vocabulary consists of CGC 9.8 images and emoticons.

 

I guess I'll come back on a weekly basis, as that's probably how long it'll take for a meaningful thread to pop up.

 

Obviously you didn't take the time to read enough to find this:

Where?

 

Stop acting like a re-posting Noob DQ.

[mica]

Where did all the quality posters go?

 

This is like some bizarre wasteland of newbie nerds, few of which have anything remotely interesting to say, and whose primary vocabulary consists of CGC 9.8 images and emoticons.

 

I guess I'll come back on a weekly basis, as that's probably how long it'll take for a meaningful thread to pop up.

 

Obviously you didn't take the time to read enough to find this:

Where?

 

Stop acting like a re-posting Noob DQ.

[Monstro]

Only thing along these lines that's come close lately is Bedrock's posting of several GA books that were cleaned and pressed - and in one instance had the "Larson" erased from the cover, as part of the cleaning process. In the course of removing the name of one of the top pedigrees of all time, the cleaning also took plenty of gloss and cover ink as well.

 

How can this not be restoration? You're "removing something from the book in an effort to enhance its condition/appearance"? Isn't that directly in line with CGC's own definition of resto?

 

not sure why you're bringing this up, other than to stir some but Steve actually answered you in that thread.

 

My mind works like this: is there anything even remotely in the "restoration" category that CGC can identify consistently but doesn't view as resto? Or is it only the things they've acknowledged not being able to identify consistently that CGC officially views as being acceptable forms of 'enhancement'? Why does it seem that only the things CGC can't consistently detect end up being lumped into the "acceptable" category? It just seems very 'convenient' to me.

 

Tape removal/stains

Erasure (NOT dry cleaning)

Tape

 

These three things we can consistently detect and DO NOT consider restoration.

 

These are also three things "remotely" (considered by some hobbyists and by some conservation definitions) in the resto arena.

 

I happen to consider any regular tape BAD NEWS for comic books.

 

Sal, baby - I can't discern your motive here, so I'll keep an open mind... do YOU think Steve Borock's response is the be-all, end-all on this subject? I don't. So if continuing to try to divine CGC's exact position/philosophy on the subject of restoration strikes you as 'stirring up *spoon*' then label me "*spoon*-disturber #1"

 

Great, so Tape removal/stains, Erasure and Tape are three things CGC can consistently detect and does not consider restoration. WHY is erasure not considered restoration? Shouldn't it be, given its seeming perfect alignment with CGC's own definition of 'restoration'? Or is this one of those actions that falls into that category of "we can't tell what the motive was behind doing the erasure, and therefore cannot assume that it was done with the intention of enhancing the book" ? I think it's pretty clear that the erasing that I referred to (on the Mystic #2 8.5 shown in this thread) removed some of the book's original color and gloss. From Steve Borock's response above, this sort of thing is consistently detectable, so it must be an issue of motive on the part of whoever did the work? Seems like a grey area to me, along the lines of color touch... my understanding was/is that ALL color touch is viewed by CGC as resto, even if done in a very amateurish way. In other words, CGC doesn't factor in motive when it comes to color touch, so why do so with erasure?

 

Is erasure any less bad than trimming or color touch? Trimming removes part of the original book, and color touch attempts to replace/restore part of the original book. Erasure in many cases, perhaps most, removes some of the original book, and is consistently detectable by CGC. Seems like it should fall in the restoration category?

 

In fact, why is erasure broken out from 'cleaning' at all? Isn't it just another form of dry cleaning? Again, while I disagree with CGC's stance on dry cleaning, I can buy into it to an extent, as CGC says they can't always detect it and would in some cases be guessing - and guessing would definitely be bad. But Steve Borock says they don't have to guess when it comes to erasure - they can consistently detect it.

 

Is erasure the only type of 'manipulation which is done to enhance a book's condition/appearance' that does in fact 'remove some of the original material of the book' and isn't considered restoration? Because "tape removal/stains" and "tape," the other two things Steve B. includes on that list, do not remove some of the original material, at least not when they're done correctly...?

 

 

as soon as i read the article that steve posted as to how the comics came to have the name larson on them and how tricarichi "jealously guarded the identity of the original owner" it became clear to me why they didn't slap it with a purple label. because the point is it wasn't an attempt at restoration or even removal of the pencil to pretty up the book. It was an attempt to hide who actually owned them.

[Monstro]

i may be wrong

[Sal]

Only thing along these lines that's come close lately is Bedrock's posting of several GA books that were cleaned and pressed - and in one instance had the "Larson" erased from the cover, as part of the cleaning process. In the course of removing the name of one of the top pedigrees of all time, the cleaning also took plenty of gloss and cover ink as well.

 

How can this not be restoration? You're "removing something from the book in an effort to enhance its condition/appearance"? Isn't that directly in line with CGC's own definition of resto?

 

not sure why you're bringing this up, other than to stir some but Steve actually answered you in that thread.

 

My mind works like this: is there anything even remotely in the "restoration" category that CGC can identify consistently but doesn't view as resto? Or is it only the things they've acknowledged not being able to identify consistently that CGC officially views as being acceptable forms of 'enhancement'? Why does it seem that only the things CGC can't consistently detect end up being lumped into the "acceptable" category? It just seems very 'convenient' to me.

 

Tape removal/stains

Erasure (NOT dry cleaning)

Tape

 

These three things we can consistently detect and DO NOT consider restoration.

 

These are also three things "remotely" (considered by some hobbyists and by some conservation definitions) in the resto arena.

 

I happen to consider any regular tape BAD NEWS for comic books.

 

Sal, baby - I can't discern your motive here, so I'll keep an open mind... do YOU think Steve Borock's response is the be-all, end-all on this subject? I don't. So if continuing to try to divine CGC's exact position/philosophy on the subject of restoration strikes you as 'stirring up *spoon*' then label me "*spoon*-disturber #1"

 

Great, so Tape removal/stains, Erasure and Tape are three things CGC can consistently detect and does not consider restoration. WHY is erasure not considered restoration? Shouldn't it be, given its seeming perfect alignment with CGC's own definition of 'restoration'? Or is this one of those actions that falls into that category of "we can't tell what the motive was behind doing the erasure, and therefore cannot assume that it was done with the intention of enhancing the book" ? I think it's pretty clear that the erasing that I referred to (on the Mystic #2 8.5 shown in this thread) removed some of the book's original color and gloss. From Steve Borock's response above, this sort of thing is consistently detectable, so it must be an issue of motive on the part of whoever did the work? Seems like a grey area to me, along the lines of color touch... my understanding was/is that ALL color touch is viewed by CGC as resto, even if done in a very amateurish way. In other words, CGC doesn't factor in motive when it comes to color touch, so why do so with erasure?

 

Is erasure any less bad than trimming or color touch? Trimming removes part of the original book, and color touch attempts to replace/restore part of the original book. Erasure in many cases, perhaps most, removes some of the original book, and is consistently detectable by CGC. Seems like it should fall in the restoration category?

 

In fact, why is erasure broken out from 'cleaning' at all? Isn't it just another form of dry cleaning? Again, while I disagree with CGC's stance on dry cleaning, I can buy into it to an extent, as CGC says they can't always detect it and would in some cases be guessing - and guessing would definitely be bad. But Steve Borock says they don't have to guess when it comes to erasure - they can consistently detect it.

 

Is erasure the only type of 'manipulation which is done to enhance a book's condition/appearance' that does in fact 'remove some of the original material of the book' and isn't considered restoration? Because "tape removal/stains" and "tape," the other two things Steve B. includes on that list, do not remove some of the original material, at least not when they're done correctly...?

 

i honestly don't have an opinion about CGC's views on erasure one way or the other at the moment. the *spoon* stirring comment wasn't about you asking the question, but rather asking it in this thread, instead of back in the original one. I would venture that you did it here because it would achieve greater exposure, thus the comment.

 

i do think the conversation is an important one, though. just in my mind, it should be done in the right forum. but this is just me opinion. ymmv

[lizards2]

Wish I could be one of the cool complainers. Apparently they're all the rage.

 

I thought the place was doing good until a few days ago.

 

How many days until Deathlock gets back?

It would be interesting to have two di.cks on the boards at the same time

 

Plenty more where they came from.